Reply With Quote
Gaaaaaah!!!
Democratic:
blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah blah
Republican:
blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah blah
Gaaaaaah!!!
Good synopsis, Ice.
Dont bring up Sept 11.
It never happened.
Thats the problem with people like Ice and Ex.
They think like Zel Miller said, "The UN and Paris France should run the thing"
TPark, you're truly a dumb . The war on terrorism is in Afghanistan. ObL is hiding there and in the border regions of Pakistan. You're not going to find him in Baghdad, in spite of GOP spin.
The war on terrorism is global. OBL is dead.
Was it UBL or OBL...
Hmmm.
Ahh, who gives a .
No GOP has ever said OBL was in Baghdad. Quit making up lies to pin on people. It's weak.ObL is hiding there and in the border regions of Pakistan. You're not going to find him in Baghdad, in spite of GOP spin.
Well Michael Moore said it was and of course I like everyone else looks to him when I want to learn about international affairs.
Good point nator, didn't realize how dopey that comment sounded till you quoted it. Just sound confident and hope they bite, right X?
:wacko
Why thank you Ex your pretty cute yourself.TPark, you're truly a dumb . The war on terrorism is in Afghanistan. ObL is hiding there and in the border regions of Pakistan. You're not going to find him in Baghdad, in spite of GOP spin
Really, JUST afghanistan??? Iraq, Iran, Israel, Russia would sure be news to that there is no terrorists there either.
You sound just like Jeanene Garafolo. "There is no such thing as a group of terrorists, just a bunch of single acts of singular people"
Can we fight all of those? Seems like we're having trouble with two pushover little countries in the Middle East right now. Cast where the big fish are.Really, JUST afghanistan??? Iraq, Iran, Israel, Russia would sure be news to that there is no terrorists there either.
Russia?
Do we really want to get involved in the Chechyna (sp) thing?
If it meant getting those little kids out safely I sure as would.
Iraq was invaded because leaving him in power in Iraq was not an option. You had a number of countries (France, Russia, etc) that were trading with him and of course he had the funds (and was getting hundreds of millions, if not a few billion dollars annually from the UN Oil for Food program) to procure and develop WMDs. And of course virtually all, if not all major intelligence services thought Hussein had WMDs. No one knew for sure because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative since the end of Gulf War I. Hussein had previous contact with al-Qaeda operatives and in general had become much more rhetorically aligned with fundamentalist Islam over the past few years. I mean, Hussein's hatred of the US and Israel was no secret. It's not that much of a stretch to see him apply the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' concept.
The option was not between removing him or just having him "boxed in." The sanctions apparatus which was arrayed against Hussein's Iraq was becoming less and less effective.
This was not a punitive military action for 9/11, it was an act of prevention.
This is not a sexy military-industrial complex style conspiracy theory but it's the way it was. I mean, if we were really interested in getting the petroleum out of Iraq we'd just gradually let things cool down with Hussein and then raise no objection as Hussein worked out deals with foreign E&P companies to develop Iraq's oil fields.
After all, Hussein had a proven method of keeping Iraq "stable."
But who are we to decide that?Iraq was invaded because leaving him in power in Iraq was not an option
The people at the receiving end of the result of his alliances with terrorists. That's who."But who are we to decide that?"
I am all for that....and if we can prove that Saddam Hussein is linked to those bas s...I say shoot him in Times Square, sell tickets, and put that on CNN.
That's already been proven. Let's move on.
The country that was attacked 3 years ago because of pussyfooting around.But who are we to decide that?
Sincerely,
The US of A
Show me the proof.
Show me the proof that Saddam Hussein had a direct link to the attacks of 9/11 and I will satisfied.
I am not trying to be a (hopefully neither are you, because you cannot always tell by typed words)...seriously, I would like to see some proof.
Do the training camps count as proof? Does his intel people
having links with them show proof? Like the WMD that
got lost, hidden, we know he had them, he used them damn
things on his own people and others, we just don't know
what he did with them. Like his nuke program, he had one,
again no one can show you the bomb. If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
More than I have seen so far, albeit not direct.
Apparently you cannot ask a question in this forum to certain people and expect a civil answer.
As I wrote:
Iraq was invaded because leaving him in power in Iraq was not an option. You had a number of countries (France, Russia, etc) that were trading with him and of course he had the funds (and was getting hundreds of millions, if not a few billion dollars annually from the UN Oil for Food program) to procure and develop WMDs. And of course virtually all, if not all major intelligence services thought Hussein had WMDs. No one knew for sure because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative since the end of Gulf War I. Hussein had previous contact with al-Qaeda operatives and in general had become much more rhetorically aligned with fundamentalist Islam over the past few years. I mean, Hussein's hatred of the US and Israel was no secret. It's not that much of a stretch to see him apply the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' concept.
The option was not between removing him or just having him "boxed in." The sanctions apparatus which was arrayed against Hussein's Iraq was becoming less and less effective.
This was not a punitive military action for 9/11, it was an act of prevention.
No one has alleged that (even if I and others believe it to be true.). What has been alleged and proven is that Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime played footsies with terrorist groups with a global reach."Show me the proof that Saddam Hussein had a direct link to the attacks of 9/11 and I will satisfied."
This is a war against terrorism of a global reach.
President Bush said we'd go after the terrorists [of global reach] and those that harbor them.
Who said Hussein had to be involved in 9/11?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
